Posting 95 LDS Theses on the Church Doors

[Guest]

...

[_Racer]

I agree with others that this is a futile attempt. The church never changes due to protests of members or the general public. The church only changes when it has absolutely painted itself into a corner and must change for the sake of survival. Examples include: dropping polygamy because the church's assets could be seized due to the Edmonds Tucker Act, or giving blacks the priesthood because of NCAA boycotting of BYU and its athletic program.

The church has set itself up as an organization run by Jesus who is the same yesterday, today, and, tomorrow. Revelation to one man, the prophet, is how the church is run. If they changed policy due to complaints or protests, it would weaken the Profit's position and show its not actually Jesus who is steering the ship, but the members. The tail can't wag the dog. This would destroy the member's attention on the wizard and reveal the man behind the curtain, thus putting a kibosh on the scam. Those with power do not willingly give up power.

Posting the 96 items won't invoke thought. Active members won't be catalysts for reform. Active members think and believe what the prophet tells them to think and believe.

An outside threat that would jeopardize cash flow will be what causes the church to have a reforming "revelation".

[_ldsfaqs]

Just another anti-mormon tomb....

Why do anti-mormons think that "their" version of the facts and truth are the actual facts and truth?

If their version of things was the actual truth, those of us very familiar with the issues, who do in fact have honor and character, wouldn't be Mormons.

So, why don't Anti-Mormons move on and have their OWN lives? We agree to disagree!

[Guest]

...

[_thews]

#28 is actually wrong, as Joseph Smith attempted to join the Methodist church, but was denied for being a practicing necromancer.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/jos ... hodist.htm

I, with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father's house on week-day). We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it. So on Sunday we went to father's, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father's shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation-. That he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book. (The Amboy Journal, June 11, 1879, p.1).

http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com/2 ... mment-form

28. In defiance of God's command to not join any churches, Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.

[_Gadianton]

Why do anti-mormons think that "their" version of the facts and truth are the actual facts and truth?

If their version of things was the actual truth, those of us very familiar with the issues, who do in fact have honor and character, wouldn't be Mormons.

Why do you think your interpretation of the facts and truth are the actual facts and truth? If your version was the actual truth -- in this case, that the anti-Mormon version is just an opinion and not fact -- then those of us very familiar with the issues, such as myself, who are mightily infused with honor and character, wouldn't be anti-Mormons anymore. So why don't Mopologists move on and go back to Sunday School? We agree to disagree!

[_Uther]

What do you all think of this modern-day LDS Martin Luther?

http://mormonreformation.blogspot.com/

I think it is an ok list that summarises a lot of problem areas, and links to an explanation of the problematic viewpoints, but I think it is overstating some of the less verifiable negative aspects.
Nothing cuts crap better than pure truth and undeniable facts, but overdoing it and including negative interpretations of unverifiable matters, somewhat stains the overall image.

I don not believe that leadership in the LDS church will reply, or even spend energy on this. They live in a different bubble on a different planet. If there were to be a response to this I would expect one from FAIR et al.

On the other hand, as a Facebook campaign, in the wake of many other LDS relater Facebook campaigns, it might end up in front of a few new people that havent been exposed to these problems, and send them off on a journey to "red pill land".

[_Uther]

I came up with 96 Theses in October 2006 (when I was a "New Order Mormon" and thought such a thing might make a difference).
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2006/10/the_96_theses_c.html

And here is my explanation for why I thought (at the time) the exercise worthwhile:
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2006/10/martin_luther_n.html

When I did my 96 Theses, I had no intention of posting them on ward buildings or at church HQ (though people offered to do that for me). I think the Internet itself serves the purpose that nailing something on a church door served in the 16th century.

Nice site Equality, many good resources, and well written theses.

[_KevinSim]

The first few points need to go for the throat. They need to sum up Joseph Smith's relations with girls or explain the temple-masonic robe connection. TBMs will assume it's all lies, but it will be new, shocking, and specific information. They will instinctively know that they can learn more about it online, and this knowledge will eat at them as they refuse to give Satan center stage.

I agree. It's kind of like when I'm talking to Biblical Christians. I'm sure there are a lot of ways I could criticize their theology, but after thinking a lot the way Gadianton is suggesting, I instead focus in on the idea that the Biblical Christian God, while capable of causing souls to cease to exist, nonetheless chooses not to cause to cease to exist, the souls of the unsaved, who will suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity. That, I think, is going for the throat the way Gadianton recommends. If you look at all the things a good God wouldn't do, I can't think of anything worse than letting the unsaved suffer like that forever.

[_KevinSim]

The church only changes when it has absolutely painted itself into a corner and must change for the sake of survival.

I disagree. Back in 2005 I had an experience with my eleven-year-old daughter that got me really thinking about what the role of women (and young women) should be in the LDS Church. That culminated about eighteen months ago in my idea to write a novel about the future of the LDS Church, after a moderate prophet makes significant changes to those roles. I put them into three groups, each spoken on by a member of the First Presidency in three consecutive general conferences. These changes weren't extreme; we're not talking about giving women the priesthood here; but they were substantial, in that they'd really change the way the Church functions. I'm still in the planning stages of this novel.

One of the changes was to let women go on missions at age 20, instead of 21; in other words it would reduce the intrinsic age gap between male and female missionaries to just one year. Last general conference that's exactly what happened; that age gap was reduced to one year. This was not the case of the LDS Church painting itself into a corner; this was just a great idea that Thomas Monson probably believes God inspired him to do. So to say that changes only happen when the Church is forced into them is simply not true.

Active members think and believe what the prophet tells them to think and believe.

This may be true for a lot of Latter-day Saints, but it's not true for all of them. I've been for a while now entertaining the idea that there may be some things that happen in the future that God doesn't actually know about. For one thing, I think there are a lot of people about which God simply doesn't know whether or not they will accept His plan and repent. It became important enough to me that I actually set up an interview with my bishop to find out what he thought about it. He told me pointblank that God does know ahead of time everything that will ever happen.

I struggled with that for a while. I highly respect this man, so I honestly tried to align my thinking to what he had told me, but it was hard. Over the next three months if anyone had actually come out and asked me what I thought about the omniscience of God, I probably would have mentioned that my bishop had told me God was literally omniscient, and that I was trying to get myself to believe in literal omniscience, but that I was struggling with it.

Then the Deseret News published a sort of philosophical article by Orson Scott Card in which Card declared that the LDS Church did teach that God didn't know every single thing that was going to happen in the future. I referred my bishop to this article, and my bishop responded by asserting that we just plain don't know whether God has total, literal omniscience, or whether His knowledge of the future is incomplete. It probably won't surprise you that I personally have gone back to thinking what I originally thought, that God doesn't literally know everything that's going to happin in the future. But I think this illustrates that at least some Latter-day Saints (namely, me) don't always have the knee-jerk attitude you described--the leader declares it, the member automatically embraces it. At least that's not the way it happened for me.